Gov't Spending Cuts Leaked ... Trial Balloons?

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
 
Cut the military and choose single payer for our healthcare system.

1. Cut military to 400 billion per year and bring the troops home
2. Single payer that will cut the cost of healthcare in half.
3. Cut welfare to 2009 levels.

That will be enough to bring it down a trillion per year without gutting essential economic processes like infrastructure, science and education.
 
chart


It's not exactly difficult to see which parts of government spending are taking the lion's share of the pie (I do love mixed metaphors).

If the Republicans play to their base and cut programs like Education and Welfare and Transportation while not dealing with Health Care spending and Defense spending, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

If they cut health care spending without a viable replacement and leave millions in the lurch, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

If they can't get the budget under control and Interest on the debt continues to grow as a percentage of the budget, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

If they think they can get away with cuts in programs like Social Security (Pensions), they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Okay guys, you wanted it, you've got it. Let's see what you've got.
.
 
Last edited:
Mac,

That is exactly what I see and the republicans will be damned before they cut the military, replace the healthcare system with something that causes less debt and work to make things work right. It isn't about making things work or efficiency with this party as it is to destroy this country.
 
Mac,That is exactly what I see and the republicans will be damned before they cut the military, replace the healthcare system with something that causes less debt and work to make things work right. It isn't about making things work or efficiency with this party as it is to destroy this country.
The turning point with the Republicans happened when Reagan uttered the cute & snappy speech tag line "government isn't the solution to our problems, government IS the problem", and many in the party took it as gospel, they took it literally.

So it appears that we're now going to see that speech tag line manifested. We'll see how it goes.
.
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
 
I suggest they cut the number of staffers each congressman is allowed to hire. Not only will it save money, some of them might even have to read the bills they enact. They could also cover themselves under all laws they enact instead of exempting themselves and substituting more expensive perks for themselves.
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)
Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)
Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either
I see you're having difficulty reaping what you sowed......it will only get harder for you as Trump continues to make America great again.....
 
There's a great amount of underbrush and new growth that needs to be cleared out in Washington. How much of that saved dough will be removed from the budget and what will be transferred to other programs such as the military and infrastructure I'm waiting to see. But anything will be an improvement over the bloated Washington bureaucracy is the feeling I have.
 
Bottom line the middle and lower class lose....and lose big. The upper class win huge. Then again its not possible economically for all 3 to get ahead at the same time.
 
I think I am going to cry, I am so happy...

THIS is what we have been advocating for for DECADES

THIS is what Republicans have been promising & campaigning on for DECADES

THIS is what Republicans have not had the moral fortitude to doe EVER.

Yes, I am liking this man, this Donald John Trump, more and more every day.
 
The next couple of days may be filled with speeches, ceremonies, a few galas and a raft of executive orders, but come next week the actual work of reducing the size (and cost) of the federal bureaucracy is set to begin. A list of items on the chopping block has leaked out this week and it’s far more than lip service. Assuming that these are the final plans, you’re going to see heads exploding in the big government cheerleading sector and a chorus of cheers coming from small government conservatives. The Hill has a list of much of what Trump is planning on taking an ax to and it contains some targets familiar to conservatives dating back to Reagan’s era.

Donald Trump is ready to take an ax to government spending.

Staffers for the Trump transition team have been meeting with career staff at the White House ahead of Friday’s presidential inauguration to outline their plans for shrinking the federal bureaucracy, The Hill has learned.
The changes they propose are dramatic.

The departments of Commerce and Energy would see major reductions in funding, with programs under their jurisdiction either being eliminated or transferred to other agencies. The departments of Transportation, Justice and State would see significant cuts and program eliminations.

The cuts to the departments of Transportation, State and Justice were already expected. Several of their functions can easily be streamlined or combined into other departments. The Department of Energy under Rick Perry can have several of its more expensive functions reduced or transferred as well. (One possibility which has been under discussion this week is moving the control and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal into Defense where it would seem to make a lot more sense anyway.)

But it’s some of the other cuts which are probably going to draw gasps of horror from Trump’s more liberal detractors. Currently on the list is the complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities. Additionally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized. If you thought there were going to be liberal marches in the streets tomorrow, just wait until those three go into effect.

The total savings to the federal government’s bottom line from all of these moves? How about $10.5 trillion over 10 years.

Oh, baby. “Dramatic” cuts are coming to federal government - Hot Air
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)
Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.
 
Bottom line the middle and lower class lose....and lose big. The upper class win huge. Then again its not possible economically for all 3 to get ahead at the same time.

Bottom line is that you lack sufficient data to make such an accusation ... since the proposal is made in grandiose and general terms, you can not say who is going to be affected by it.

But, of course, that doesn't stop the caterwauling, does it?
 
10 trillion over 10 years?? So he is cutting a trillion a year? Is that from his discretionary spending budget or from somewhere else? How's that all working with his tax cuts and what does the end deficit/surplus look like?
Dumb questions .... but I'll try to keep the answers simple.

1) It is not a trillion a year. You probably aren't aware of the cumulative economic impact of spending cuts. Maybe a 3rd grade course in macroeconomics would be appropriate. Call your local elementary school.

2) By definition, the cuts must come from discretionary spending. Frankly, an incredibly stupid question.

3) Increased income as a result of tax cuts, coupled with decreased spending, means movement toward a balanced budget. Will it get there? No. Cuts of about 38% are required. Obviously, narrowing the gap between spending and income means the deficit is lowered or erased.

If you need more lessons, we'll be here tomorrow right after morning recess .... you know, when you get your pint of milk.
Can you be anymore demeaning?

So let me get this straight, he is going to cut 10 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... I realize that includes a progressive model of cuts but for simplicity sake that averages out to 1 trillion a year. The discressionary spending budget for 2017 is 1.2 Trillion. Explain exactly how this is all making sense.

Next, you say tax cuts increase income when by definition tax cuts decrease income. You can hope that the tax cuts will stimulate investment and economic activity but reality is that government revenue decreases. Trumps plan is estimated to decrease revenue by 6 trillion over 10 years. You can hope that economic growth makes up for the loss of revenue but even with an aggressive assumption of 4% growth it still does not close the gap. Not even close. Not to mention the extreme likelihood that interest rates will rise which will effect private investment and stall growth.

My conclusion, especially after your condescending dickhead response is that you are nothing more than a simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics.

Yep, that's me ... a " ,,, simple minded partisan with a screwed understanding of economics ..."

If that's what you wish, then so be it. No one here would DARE challenge your obvious mental superiority. I mean, after all ... YOU are a god.

(Frankly, your childish and shallow understanding of macroeconomics is embarrassing... but, hey, you're the expert, right? You might want to at least get the Cliff Notes)
Brilliant comeback man. I look to learn and grow my understanding in all facets of life. Especially with something as complicated as the economics of our nation. All I can do is express my thoughts and try to learn from and understand others. I in no way presume to know it all.

I asked you a few simple questions to engage in a dialogue and you responded like a condescending asshole. Not sure how you expected me to respond to you, but your words and tone demanded zero respect. And frankly, your ideas and comprehension of the economics from our discussion don't warrant any respect either

First of all, your question about the impact on the budget indicates a lack of understanding. Cuts are measured against expenses, not against budget ... particularly, considering the Get out Of Jail Free card the federal government has. The budget is not much more than a paperwork exercise. Costs saving can only come against costs incurred. Based on my experience, a cut of $10 trillion will have little or no impact on the BUDGET - but a significant impact on the expenditures.

In our case, saving a $1 trillion a year (which we know it isn't) barely brings the budget back into balance (spending=income, thus eliminating the deficit, remembering that the deficit in 2016 was about $600 billion) - something done once in the last 40 years - therefore, a question about budgetary impact serves little or no purposes.

Second, your question about discretionary spending indicates you didn't understand the basic premise - an efficiency cut across the board (a smarter way of doing business - not a cut in services). It would apply to both discretionary and mandatory spending. It is an efficiency application, not a services cut.

Third, and probably most important, since this was not an official proposal, it is clearly a trial balloon to measure the reaction of the voters (and, more importantly, Congress) to determine the feasibility of such a proposal. These "trial balloons" MUST be significant in order to get the attention of Congress. If, for example, the proposal said it would save $100 billion/10 years, everybody would nod sagely and say "get on with it". It isn't the amount, it's the concept that must be measured.
I understand that my initial questions were remedial but I was trying to gauge where you were coming from. I'm sure you've seen a fair share of complete morons in this board so I wanted to see how you would respond. I asked the descrtionary question to see if you were factoring in potential policy changes that would effect mandatory spending like SS and Medicare that may occur.

The main flaw I saw in your arguement was a trillion dollar per year cut on a 1.2 trillion budget with a proposed trillion dollars in infrastructure spending that Trump has proposed and that which you left out. There is just no way it all makes sense.

I was hoping for good Conservative fiscal policy after this election and was hoping for an administration that could increases the efficiency of government programs and cut much of the waste. I'm hopeful that Trump can do this but thus far there has been a tremendous lack of details and specifics about how this can be achieved. Mich of the math doesn't add up. The time for empty talk and campaign propaganda is over. It's time for action. I hope he can perform.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top